Hey, Desmostylus. Why don’t you go find yourself a fence similar to the one I described and repeat my experiment. Then you can call me stupid. In the meantime, what the hell kind of grand triumph of human ingenuity is your post supposed to be?
Princhester strikes again!
You admit you didn’t even think it through before you prejudicially concluded that my post was wrong in its conclusions. Then you called it “sufficiently obscure”. You have just shown the world what an idiot you are. See, anybody with a basic grounding in quantum physics would see that post and say, “oh yeah… diffraction gratings!” But not you, no siree.
I never called my post stupid. I merely suggested one line of reasoning that you might use to attack it.
But this thread is not about you, and it’s not about me, it’s about the RIAA and the morality of what theyre doing vs. what they’re up against. IMO, the lengths on copyrights are too long. Originally they were defined as having a specific duration (I seem to have misplaced my copy of the Constitution but IIRC it was 28 years) so as to give authors and artists a limited term on copyright. That “limited term” is now so long that none of us will be alive when it expires.
What in the hell does this have to do with anything?
What was the point of typing that?
Mr 2001
The ridiculous notion that it would be fine for someone to come into my house unbeknownst to me, and take a copy of a yet to be copywritten song to do whatever the hell they choose with it, brings your very sanity to question.
You have long crossed the threshold of common sense.
If an artist/musician/filmmaker does not want something to be released at all, their wishes should be respected. If something is released and makes it’s way (because the creator wanted it released) “out into the world”, there should be a set of common sense rules put into place to protect the creator for a certain period of time. If the creator so desires, these rules can be bypassed. (Korn says, “download till you drop” for example)
Anything else and we might as well exist in some post apocalyptic wasteland where only the stong survive by taking what they want.
p.s.
Your viewpoint is most likely shared by about 6 other people on entire fucking planet
I cannot believe my 200th post is going on a thread that is frequented by pricnester and demonstyles.
Who the hell is arky29?
Oh, and World Eater, it’s not copywritten, it’s copyrighted. And I’m glad to hear that Korn is adapting with the times! 
Could ya do me a favor and cite that? Honestly, if all professional musicians took that stance we wouldn’t need to argue about it. I think the fact that they say “download till you drop” is in itself a sign that I had a point when I was saying before that groups make most of their revenue by means other than album sales.
That’s what I’ve been thinking for over a page now. I at first didn’t expect that he’d actually defend such a notion, but he promptly and vigorously went and did just that. :eek:
However, you’ve made one grave error when dealing with someone who lives in the bizarro alternaworld of Mr2001: you phrased it, “someone to come into my house unbeknownst to me.” This leaves it open for him to parse and nitpick that and say, “Well, if they broke into your house, of course that would be illegal!” As if that was the complete premise.
But it was not, of course. Someone could have been invited in by one of the kids of the house or some other unknowing family member, (hell, even a family member could leak the stuff). And once they are in and have “access,” well, copy away.
But even though he’s now backflipping and trying to attempt to make weak consessions about “privacy,” he doesn’t really concede that everything in the house should be “private.” Just the really personal stuff. But who gets to decide that? What is private enough to be protected? Are the journals? The half-finished semi-autobiographical book? The sketchbook full of Life Drawings (nudes)? Where does one draw the line between “private” and “free for the taking”? I don’t understand why it shouldn’t be bloody obvious that if the thing is in the damned house that maybe people shouldn’t be trying to copy it and publish it without the owner’s consent or knowledge.
But apparently this is just too much for some people to grasp.
And it’s scary that 2 out of the six people on the planet are on this very board! (UnuMondo also “emphatically” supports the same or similar position.)
God, you’re fucking a dumbass aryk29.
Not Korn, nor anyone else I’m aware of has told people to “download till you drop”, I was using that as an example.
I do agree that if all musicians took that stance that they were cool with people stealing their music we wouldn’t be having this argument, but that isn’t the case on this planet, and that’s just fucking stupid.
It’s no big secret that bands make most of their money off touring and merchandising, which comprise the majority of their earnings. This is totally beside the point for two very important reasons.
-
There are people involved in the creation of the album that aren’t involved in the band. Their earnings are based directly on how many “units” are moved. The people who create the art for example, get paid on a royalty basis. The more albums that sell, the more money they make, and trust me it ain’t much even if the thing sells a million. Producers, A&R, and associated record label flacks, people who in many cases scrape a living together, also benefit if the album does well. Like many industries, there are performance benefits tied directly to the total number of sales, and jobs that depend on them. There are many people scraping a living together off 50 cent while he is off buying a solid gold helicopter, please try to remember that.
-
With everything above in mind, it is still wrong to deprive a person of a minority of their income. If Bruce Springsteen makes 10 cents of every album sold worldwide, is it ok to deny him that because it’s a tiny part of his earnings? If he sells 5 million worldwide a year (and that guestimate is most likely too low), that is half a million dollars! Regardless of what someone makes off their craft, it is immoral to take that from them, and that is the point you are unable to realize. Are you cool with a 10% paycut? It’s not the majority of your income, it won’t hurt you.
The ironic thing is you asses don’t even know who you are railing against, the eviiiiiilll record companies raping the consumer and the artist, the Illuminati like RIAA with their “outdated business model”, or the rich artists themselves, who laugh and spit on us from their solid gold hot tubs surrounded by throngs of nubile blowjob giving groupies.
One thing is clear though, you and Mr 1901 should go back to the stone age with your retarded outdated concepts.
God, you’re fucking a dumbass aryk29.
Not Korn, nor anyone else I’m aware of has told people to “download till you drop”, I was using that as an example.
I do agree that if all musicians took that stance that they were cool with people stealing their music we wouldn’t be having this argument, but that isn’t the case on this planet, and that’s just fucking stupid.
It’s no big secret that bands make most of their money off touring and merchandising, which comprise the majority of their earnings. This is totally beside the point for two very important reasons.
-
There are people involved in the creation of the album that aren’t involved in the band. Their earnings are based directly on how many “units” are moved. The people who create the art for example, get paid on a royalty basis. The more albums that sell, the more money they make, and trust me it ain’t much even if the thing sells a million. Producers, A&R, and associated record label flacks, people who in many cases scrape a living together, also benefit if the album does well. Like many industries, there are performance benefits tied directly to the total number of sales, and jobs that depend on them. There are many people scraping a living together off 50 cent while he is off buying a solid gold helicopter, please try to remember that.
-
With everything above in mind, it is still wrong to deprive a person of a minority of their income. If Bruce Springsteen makes 10 cents of every album sold worldwide, is it ok to deny him that because it’s a tiny part of his earnings? If he sells 5 million worldwide a year (and that guestimate is most likely too low), that is half a million dollars! Regardless of what someone makes off their craft, it is immoral to take that from them, and that is the point you are unable to realize. Are you cool with a 10% paycut? It’s not the majority of your income, it won’t hurt you.
The ironic thing is you asses don’t even know who you are railing against, the eviiiiiilll record companies raping the consumer and the artist, the Illuminati like RIAA with their “outdated business model”, or the rich artists themselves, who laugh and spit on us from their solid gold hot tubs surrounded by throngs of nubile blowjob giving groupies.
One thing is clear though, you and Mr 1901 should go back to the stone age with your retarded outdated concepts.
I’ll also add that you neglect to take into account that an artist may get income from the same song on different albums. A band like Rage against the machine will have a song on their studio album, a movie soundtrack (the Matrix for example), and a “hot hits of 1999” album.
At the end of the day, album sales can add up to be quite a pretty penny.
But who gives a shit, if we steal just a little they won’t miss it.
Damn, that’s pretty catchy. I like it. Though I’ll admit to a degree of envy over “demonstyles”, which is the better of the two.
I guess it might seem that way to someone who didn’t realize you’ve been evading that question for the past two pages.
“A certain amount” sure doesn’t nail anything down. Life+50? Life+100? Life+200? I think I’ve seen you support Life+70 in the past. How will you ensure that works fall into the public domain while they’re still relevant, or do you think it’s fine for the public domain to be comprised almost entirely by works that are only of interest to historians and collectors?
I think there’s a worthy argument to be made that it’s immoral to disclose private details of someone’s life, or information that could be damaging to them if it got out.
Not everything in your house is “private” enough to be protected. A photo of a rock or a rap song about pimpin’ hos isn’t private enough to warrant protection just because you say it is, or because you spent your own time making it, or because you just don’t want other people to have it.
Who gets to decide if a particular work is a parody (fair use) or just a derivative work (infringement)? Where does one draw the line between “opinion” and “slander”?
They’re all important questions and there’s no single right answer. That’s why we have judges and juries - to decide on the merits of each case.
In principle, yes - you’re effectively making a copy of that physical item and leaving them with nothing less than they started with.
In practice, though, you can’t know for certain that you really are leaving them with nothing less than they started with, because they may value their time differently than you expect, they might not be able to replace the item on time, they might need to use the item for some purpose you didn’t expect, etc. (Those issues don’t exist with IP, of course.)
It seems yosemitebabe has correctly addressed the problem with this statement–obviously it’s not “fine” for someone to break into your house–and at the same time, spiced it up with her own unique blend of hysteria and smug self-congratulation.
Also, “whatever the hell they choose” is too broad. Even if you invite someone into your house and show him your work, it’s still not “fine” for him to sell copies or otherwise exploit it for a profit - if anyone has an exclusive right to exploit IP for a profit, it’s the owner.
Argumentum ad populum, and blind-ass wrong to boot. But hey, don’t let that stop you.
Making fun of my name, now that’s the way to show your, uh, “wit”. (Not that I’d mind limiting copyright terms back to their 1901 lengths, of course…)
On preview, at least it’s not Pricnester or Demonstyles. 
I’ve waffled between Life + 50 to even as low as Life + 35, I believe. I may have even toyed with 25 years a few times. I can live with Life + 70, but really, that’s kind of long.
I do not support unlimited, open-ended copyrights; that is absurd. I don’t support the idea that coporations can continue to extend copyrights forever. They should be forced to adhere to the same time limits as individual copyright holders.
No, I do not think that your “right” to use my work for free should start before I’ve even kicked off. I doubt that will satisfy you as being being supportive enough of public domain, and for this, I could not give one particle of a damn.
I’ve discussed this before, so it should not come as some major surprise to you. ::shrug:: So trying to act as if I’m “dodging” something shameful is absurd. I don’t think I’m stating anything radically new here.
You, however, have plenty to dodge, and I see you are still trying to masterfully spin this bit of bullshit you’ve willingly slung against the wall.
But you clearly did not give a damn about such possibilities when you stated that you thought it was OK for photo labs to copy people’s photos and copy whatever the hell out of their house that was not locked up.
No, sorry, too late now to pretend you give a damn about people’s privacy.
This is warped. WACKED. This bizarro alternaworld you live in is frightening. One more time:
YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS COPYING AND PUBLISHING ANYTHING THAT YOU FIND IN SOMEONE ELSE’S HOUSE.
It is NOT up to you to decide what is “not private” enough in someone else’s DAMNED PRIVATE HOME. That’s what “private” means. They don’t have to explain or rationalize or justify why anything they have in their DAMNED PRIVATE HOME is “private” to them. They sure as hell shouldn’t have to endure some asshole going in there deciding that certain things aren’t “private” enough, and therefore should be copied and published to the world.
World Eater had it right when he said your very sanity should be in question.
Some things are actually very cut and dried: IF IT’S IN THEIR HOME, IT’S THEIR STUFF. IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO COPY AND PUBLISH AGAINST THEIR WISHES. Furthermore, if they take film to a shop be developed or a picture to be framed, IT STILL IS THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IT IS NOT FOR YOU OR ANYONE ELSE TO COPY AND PUBLISH.
I am sorry that the wolves that raised you did not teach you these things, but it’s never too late to learn. Welcome to the human race.
**
Except of course the opportunity to sell me the mower, which they had but for my helping myself to their property without their consent. The opportunity to sell people things at a profit is why manufacturers manufacture, why wholesales sell and why retailers open their doors.
Your concerns suggest that the immorality of theft of commercial property in my hardware example lies in the possibility of minor inconveniences to the business owner. Personally, I think you are commercially naive.
Mr2001 I think we have reached the end of the road. I think I understand your principles pretty well now. I understand very well why I disagree with them. Is there anything more to say?
Thank you.
IIRC, you said:
Now read that carefully and tell me it’s not open to interpretation. If that’s too difficult, allow me to point out a possible correction. I suggest replacing “(Korn says, ‘download till you drop’ for example)” with “(if, for example, Korn were to say ‘download till you drop’)”.
Since when is 1901 the stone age? Sounds like someone’s a bit rusty on their history! I’d say maybe, off by several thousand years at least. Now tell me again, who is the dumbass?
Oh, and Princhester, will you stop with the damn lawnmowers already? I’ve already explained to you why the analogy doesn’t hold water.
Mr2001, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that we’d started a kind of interesting “Great Debate” over this privacy issue. So I have thrown it up to the Teeming Millions to discuss in this GD thread. (And I think I was very restrained in my OP. Not one use of “wacked out” or “alternaworld” was used. ;))
Your limited reading comprehension is the real problem here. Try a workbook.
**
Do you plan to answer any of my points made in my previous post?
My fault, my implication was an invited person in my house took something unbeknownst to me. not that someone had been in the house without my knowledge.
**
This is the first thing you’ve said that makes a granule of sense, good for you. I think things outside of the house should be covered as well. As Yosemitebabe mentioned earlier, how would you feel about someone who takes a painting they made to a framing store to get it framed. Even though it’s outside of the house, do you think it should still be protected?
(Number 3 added by me)
-
Of course my suggestion was an oversimplification. There are expenses involved with recording an album. That’s why I refer to it as a utopian ideal, not a plan to take over the industry. There are a lot of utopian ideals that would be nice to see pan out, but won’t until a few practical details can be addressed. Didn’t I already say I don’t claim to have all the answers?
-
But if we would pay the artists directly, we wouldn’t be depriving them of income, we’d be adding to it. Cutting out the middleman does wondrous things, when it can be successfully pulled off.
-
Bullshit. I think I speak for most everyone on this thread when I say that I know the artists from the labels from the RIAA.
It sounds to me like Mr2001 is from the open source programmer community. I think his perspective is valid since IIRC he is familiar with the idea of distributing works for free (as am I). We should welcome his viewpoint into the discussion since he obviously knows things some of you don’t.
And yes, it occurred to me long ago that this thread has turned into GD with fucking cursing.
Well oversimplifications ain’t gonna help deal with this very real problem. The system needs to be changed, no one is disputing that, but it all begins with people respecting the hard work of the creators, and their desire to be compensated for what they have made.
**
There are people involved in a song other then the artist that require compensation, you must keep this in mind, it’s essential.
As far as paying the artist directly? Good luck. This is the exact point where the middleman enters stage left. How in the hell do you propose paying the artist directly? Direct deposit your creditcard purchase into their account? The crux is that artists don’t have time to worry about anything other then creating music, and why should they? Nine times out of ten an artist with a good business manager, a PR person, and a entertainment lawyer will go a lot further in the industry then a DIY musician. The same goes with outsourcing compensation. Can you fathom how dizzying it must be to keep tabs on a single song? Movie soundtracks, snippets of the song for network TV, commercials and even video games? Globally?
No, the middleman isn’t going anywhere, because it would be impossible for an artist to stay up with the industry. Even if someone decided to buck the trend and go their own way, 99% of them would dry up and blow away, as other artists with a better support structure in place would leap ahead of them.
Are there exceptions? Of course, but they are few and far between.
**
I don’t even know what the fuck you are talking about here, so I can’t really reply to this.
Keep in mind that the RIAA is simply a trade organization, and the level of corruption in the music industy goes way past them.
**
Open source community != Music industry.
In fact, they couldn’t be any more diametrically opposed.
The open source community consists of programmers contributing their free time (most of them have real jobs remember) to collaborate on projects that they feel will benefit the computing world.
Musicians and artists are usually trying to support themselves from their craft, and are against giving their IP away for free. Of course there are people that do it for the love of art and music, however in that case, they usually don’t seek out a record deal preferring to remain free of the constraints imposed on them from the industry. If an artist chooses to waive their copyright protection, of course that’s perfectly fine with me, no debate there.
People want to rant against the system, that’s fine with me, as a musician that has been signed I’ll be the first to demand change. But ripping off the artists is not the way to implement change, and it never will be.
**
Fucking fine with me.